a learning design toolkit to create pedagogically effective learning activities (conole fill 2005)

7/30/2019 A Learning Design Toolkit to Create Pedagogically Effective Learning Activities (Conole Fill 2005)

1/16

Conole, G. and Fill, K. (2005).

A learning design toolkit to create pedagogically effective learning activities

Journal of Interactive Media in Educat ion 2005(08).

[jime.open.ac.uk/2005/08].

Grinne Conole and Karen Fill ,University of Southampton . Page 1

Published26 September 2005

ISSN: 1365-893X

A learning design toolkit to create pedagogicallyeffective learning activities

Grinne Conole, Karen FillAbstract:Despite the plethora of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) tools andresources available, practitioners are still not making effective use of e-learning to enrichthe student experience. This article describes a learning design toolkit which guidespractitioners through the process of creating pedagogically informed learning activitieswhich make effective use of appropriate tools and resources. This work is part of a digitallibraries project in which teaching staff at two universities in the UK and two in the USAare collaborating to share e-learning resources in the subject domains of Physical,Environmental and Human Geography. Finding, or creating, suitable e-learning resourcesand embedding them in well designed learning activities can be both challenging and time

consuming. Sharing and adapting effective designs and solutions is both a stimulant and atime saver. This article describes the background to the specification of a learning activitiesdesign toolkit to support teachers as they create or adapt e-learning activities. This uses amodel of pedagogical approaches as a basis for developing effective learning design plansand illustrates its use. The authors share their definition of a learning activity andtaxonomies for the constituent elements. Real examples are discussed to illustrate theirapproach.

Keywords: Learning design, toolkits, teaching/learning strategies, e-learning, pedagogy

Interactive Demonstration: An online version of the toolkit is available athttp://www.nettle.soton.ac.uk/toolkit/Default.aspx .

Commentaries:All JIME articles are published with links to a commentaries area, which includes part of the articles original review debate. Readers are invited to make use of this resource, and toadd their own commentaries. The authors, reviewers, and anyone else who has subscribedto this article via the website will receive e-mail copies of your postings.


2/16

Pedagogically effective learning activities

Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2005 (08) Page 2

Conole, Fill (2005)

1 IntroductionThe use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) to support all forms of

learning has expanding exponentially in the last decade. The perceived benefits of e-learning include the opportunity to learn anytime, anywhere and to communicate andcollaborate virtually across countries. For teachers e-learning is seen as having the potentialto reach new student markets, offering more flexible learning opportunities for students,facilitating the tracking of student progress and activities, as well as providing anopportunity for creating new and innovative learning environments.

E-learning is now no longer a peripheral activity, the province of the isolated enthusiast, butis pervading Higher Education (HE), not just as an effective infrastructure for distancecourses but blended with more traditional approaches on campus. Indeed, Carr-Chellman &Duchastel (2000) went as far as to term it a "new online paradigm [which] calls not somuch for providing instruction at a distance, as for making available learning resources andinstructional activities to students." In effect, the context is a potentially rich learning

environment , where "students are typically engaged in multiple activities in pursuit of multiple learning goals, with the teacher serving the role of coach and facilitator." (Wilson,1996)

There are now a plethora of online learning environments and associated tools to supportteaching and learning (Conole, 2004). These include communication (email, discussionboards, synchronous chat), authoring and assessment tools, as well as integrated learningenvironments such as Blackboard and WebCT. Similarly, there is a range of tools tofacilitate searching. Despite this, uptake in the use of these technologies within highereducation has been fragmented and slow (Conole, 2004; Littlejohn and McGill, 2004). Arecent report concludes 'amongst the factors that are slowing the uptakeis the lack of acoherent framework within which to evaluate both the pedagogical benefits and theorganisational changes required to effectively implement it' (Britain and Liber, 2004).Research to date shows that it is difficult to encourage authentic virtual learning orcollaboration; discussion board use, for example, often shows a pattern of peak use directlyrelated to teacher intervention or responses to particular 'hot' topics. Collaborative groupwork needs to be carefully set up and orchestrated to achieve desired results and despite thismay still end up as a rather stilted collaboration exercise not comparable with direct face-to-face equivalent group work (Jones, 1999). Integrated learning environments are stillpredominantly used as shells for displaying web pages and rarely get beyond basicinformation dissemination and administration (Thomas and Wyatt, 1999). With respect toinformation seeking and handling, the sheer volume available to learner/researchers isincreasing exponentially, unmatched by the sophistication of the searching and handlingtools (Lawrence and Lee Giles, 1999). Information overload, coupled with confusion of where to look, is increasingly problematic and, despite a growth in the range of searchingtools and portals, it is not evident that the right information is being dispatched to the rightusers in a timely and quality assured fashion (Conole, 2002).


3/16



Conole, Fill (2005)

The paper begins by considering the reasons for the lack of uptake of ICT to supportlearning and teaching. The paper describes a learning design toolkit which aims to supportpractitioners in the creation of pedagogically informed learning activities.

2 Skills for e-learningDespite the variety of ICT tools and resources available and the recognized potentialbenefits of using these to support teaching and learning, many practitioners lack thenecessary e-learning skills to take full advantage of the potential affordances (Conole andDyke, 2004) that these technologies offer and complain that support and training in thisarea is inadequate (Oliver, McBean, Conole and Harvey, 2002). Furthermore, despite thefact that many described instances of e-learning claim to draw upon theoretical positions,such as constructivism, many do not explain how they embody the principles and values of that approach (Oliver et al. , 2002). As a result many designs reflect 'commonsense' ratherthan theoretically informed design (Conole, Dyke, Oliver, & Seale, 2004). A moretheoretically consistent approach to learning design is needed which inter-relates theorywith the desired features of learning, and then maps relevant tools and resources (bothhuman and technical) against these. This approach makes the relationship between practiceand underpinning theory more explicit and, we argue, should enable practitioners to makemore theoretically informed choices of the tools and resources used to support learning.

Few academic staff have had the opportunity to develop the pre-requisite expertise todesign and implement an effective strategy for acquisition, use and evaluation of either newmaterials or methods of delivery. In order to provide these practitioners with support andencouragement, easy-to-use guidelines and resources are required. Not only must these bebased on sound, tested pedagogical theories but, first and foremost, they must be practicalfor academics using (or evaluating the use of) learning technologies. One approach toaddressing this issue is the use of toolkits which help guide the practitioner through a seriesof pedagogically informed decisions in the design process.

There has been an increasing interest in recent years in addressing these problems and inparticular for developing mechanisms for facilitating the uptake and effective use of ICTand the repurposing of existing resources. Simple models and frameworks have provedpopular such as the e-moderating framework for setting up and managing discussion groups(Salmon, 2000) and study guides such as those produced by the LTSN generic centre(LTSN, 2002) and the Association of Learning Technology (Seale and Ruis Rui, 2002).However, as a recent review of this area concludes (Mayes and De Freitas, 2004), there islittle in the way of concrete e-learning models and, arguably, there is little in the way of innovative practice (Oliver, 2004). Furthermore, some would argue that there is a surfaceapproach to the use of these guidelines and models and, despite the hype surrounding thepotential for re-use and repurpose, the reality is that it is fraught with difficulties(Littlejohn, 2003).


4/16



Conole, Fill (2005)

3 Situating learning designSome authors contend that design for computer based or online learning is rooted in

behaviourist theories of knowledge acquisition (Gagne, Briggs, & Wager, 1974), whilstothers argue that the needs of different learning styles are better served by a constructivistapproach (Honebein, 1996), most particularly in "multimedia based lessons" (Clark &Wentworth, 1997). The range of approaches based on behaviourist and/or cognitive theoriesis usefully summarised by Meyer (1998). Doolittle (1999) graded the ability of onlineeducation to meet eight primary requirements of a constructivist pedagogy and concludedthat

"Overall, online education provides the resources necessary for students to engagein rich and effective construction of knowledge. The key to online education andconstructivism is not whether or not the potential exists, but rather, whether or notthe potential will be actualised."

Pragmatically, it is clear that "designers and instructors need to choose for themselves thebest mixture of behaviourist and constructivist learning experiences for their onlinecourses" (Carr-Chellman & Duchastel, 2000). There is also a mix of the online paradigmwith traditional (offline) experiences, a combination now termed blended learning . Increating online learning experiences, designers and instructors are increasingly able to drawon digital resources available from web-based repositories, or stored in offline media. Asfacilitators of these experiences they can use asynchronous or synchronous communicationstechnologies. As evaluators of the outcomes of the learning they may combine on andoffline assessments.

As we move beyond the innovation and early adopter phase of this paradigm, there isincreasingly a need and a willingness to share both resources and effective e-learningdesign with colleagues. Hicks, Reid, & Rigmor (2001) suggested that "quality depends onthe way technology is used to provide access to relevant learning opportunities at the

optimum time." (p. 144). They provided a useful table of the characteristics, learningopportunities and learning demands of online environments. Hedberg (2003) made anumber of important points about design for quality in e-learning. These include fosteringlearner engagement, enabling multiple roles for both learners and tutors, and appropriatefocusing of assessed tasks. He claimed that well designed e-learning offers learners theopportunity to "gain a greater understanding of their own experiences than those remainingin the classroom expecting that the 'knowledge' will be given to them." (p.179)

With respect to learner engagement, Laurillard (2002) distinguished between 'sit forward' interactive media and 'sit back' narrative media (p.110) and suggested that they do notcombine well (p. 136). She concluded that "improvements in university teaching are morelikely to be achieved through 'multiple media', appropriately balanced for their pedagogicvalue, than through reliance on any one learning technology." (p. 174)


5/16



Conole, Fill (2005)

The increasing availability and use of online, digital resources to support teaching andlearning is stimulating a convergence between the fields of learning design and learningobject technologies. Indeed, in some quarters, the reusability debate has moved on from

how to label digital objects so that other people, or systems, can find and use them, to howto describe "a whole learning experience" so that it can be "tweaked" for use elsewhere(Kraan, 2003).IMS learning design specification is concerned with articulating learning design processes.This was developed in part to shift attention from a focus on content to process. Koper andOlivier (2004) argue that e-learning specifications (such as the IEEE LOM) considerlearning in terms of a resticted pedagogical perspective namely that 'in order to learn, asingle learner has to work through a sequence of learning objects' therefore suggesting thatlearning is a process of consuming of content. They acknowledge that current educationalpractice is more complex and advanced than this and the learning design specification wasdeveloped to reflect this. Learning design is defined as an application of a pedagogicalmodel for a specific learning objective, target group and a specifc context or knowledgedomain. The learning design specifies the teaching and learning process, along with the

conditions under which it occurs and the activites performed by the teachers and learners inorder to achieve the required learning objectives. LD is based on the metaphor of learningas a play instatiated through a series of acts with associated roles and resources. The coreconcept of LD is that a person is assigned a role in the teaching-learning process and workstowards certain outcomes by performing learning activities within a given environment.The environment consists of appropriate learning objects and services used during theperformance of the activities. See Koper and Tattersall (2005) for a recent overview of learning design.

With the emergence of the Learning Design specification (IMSLD, 2003), a number of applications are now being offered to guide users through the learning design process andhelp them create effective learning activities with pedagogically informed use of tools andresources, such as the method and tool described by Paquette et al. (2005). A further

example is the Learning Activity Management System (LAMS) which guides practitionersthrough the process of learning design (Dalziel, 2003). Using a 'drag and drop interface',users can pick and mix different types of learning activities. Littlejohn and McGill (2004)have identified lesson plans as an important category of resource which are used commonlyin schools and FE (and to a lesser extend in HE). They state that resources 'are particularlyuseful within the context of staff development, since they give insight into differenteducational approaches'. Therefore tools like LAMS are useful in terms of guidingpractitioners through the production of these lesson plans.

Another mechanism for supporting practitioners through the different approaches andtheories associated with promoting effective learning design is through the use of a 'toolkit'such as described in this paper. The next section defines the concept and rationale fortoolkits, followed by a more detailed description of a specific toolkit to support thedevelopment of learning activities.


6/16



Conole, Fill (2005)

4 Toolkits as a mechanism for supportingpractitioners

Most commercial software now comes with some form of in-built help system andreference manual. In addition many also provide templates or how-to wizards to guide theuser through a particular set of activities. Word's paper clip and PowerPoint's templatepresentations are good examples. As a consequence, practice has shifted from a culture of reading the manual of instructions to a just in time culture based on immediate need. This isechoed in research into children's use of gaming software which shows that they learn touse these applications through trial and error and by exploring the package rather thanreferring to the manual (Sutherland, Keri, Furlong, & Furlong, 1999). A wizard is asoftware tool that makes decisions on behalf of the user, based on solicited information anddrawing on pre-defined templates. In most cases, the way in which the outputs from awizard are generated is hidden from the user. As a result, they are easy to use, butrestrictive in terms of the type and variety of potential outputs from user interactions withthe tool. Another category of support tool is toolkits, which are decision-making systemsbased on expert models, positioned between wizards and generic conceptual frameworkswhich can provide a theoretical overview of an area and hence be used as a point of reference for decision making (Conole and Oliver, 2002; Oliver et al. , 2002).

Frameworks, toolkits and wizards lie at different points along a continuum, with open butunsupportive theoretical maps at one end, and restrictive but easy to use software 'black boxes' at the other. No value judgement is made about which of these points is 'best' forusers; clearly, each is suited to supporting users with different needs and varying levels of expertise. By definition, all toolkits include an expert model of a process derived fromrecognised theory and best practice. This provides a manageable process, supporting theimplementation of performance monitoring systems. Furthermore, by providing a commonconceptual framework (particularly one in which multiple interpretations of terms can benegotiated and agreed), it becomes possible to define and establish standards.

A toolkit provides a structured resource that can be used to plan, scope and cost an activity(examples include the development of an evaluation plan, choosing and integratingdifferent types of media into teaching, or managing information). By providing increasinglydetailed layers of information, the user can follow up relevant issues when and if such detailis required. In addition, by providing a simple, logically organised structure toolkits help toreduce the time required to plan work of this type. Toolkits are designed to be easy-to-usefor practitioners; provide guidance, but not be prescriptive; be adaptable and easy tocustomise to the local context; provide a comprehensive resource of relevant material; andprovide demonstrable benefit to users.


7/16



Conole, Fill (2005)

5 MethodologyThe methodology adopted in developing the learning design toolkit described here follows

the approach adopted in the development of previous toolkits (Conole and Oliver, 2002;Oliver et al. , 2002). There are five main strands to this approach:

1. Work closely with practitioners to analyse their methods, when creating or re-purposing resources, and be guided by their requirements.

2. Enshrine good practice within the toolkit, such that it will guide and supportteachers as they create, modify, and share teaching and learning resources.

3. Research, understand and apply what is going on in the learning design field,particularly evolving standards in the areas of sharing digital resources,interoperability, searching, re-purposing, and permissions.

4. Embrace new technologies, such as adaptive hypermedia and semanticallystructured metadata, to provide a tailored development environment, accessing

heterogeneous data repositories across a grid service infrastructure.5. Develop, test and evaluate a prototype toolkit with practitioners and then revise in

light of feedback.

A series of interactive interviews with practitioners helps articulate the key componentsinvolved in their learning design processes and in particular helped identify areas wherefurther support was required. Some of the activities enhanced existing courses, whilst othersinvolved the creation of completely new courses. These discussions and detailed analysisinformed the initial requirements analysis for the toolkit.

The learning design toolkit described can be used for three main purposes:1. As step-by-step guidance to help practitioners make theoretically informed

decisions about the development of learning activities and choice of appropriatetools and resources to undertake them.

2. As a database of existing learning activities and examples of good practice whichcan then be adapted and reused for different purposes.

3. As a mechanism for abstracting good practice and metamodels for e-learning

6 A definition for learning activitiesAt the heart of the toolkit is the notion of a learning activity (LA), which we define asconsisting of three elements:

1. The context within which the activity occurs, this includes the subject, level of difficulty, the intended learning outcomes and the environment within which theactivity takes place.


8/16



Conole, Fill (2005)

2. The learning and teaching approaches adopted, including the theories and models

3. The tasks undertaken, which specifies the type of task, the techniques used,associated tools and resources, the interaction and roles of those involved and theassessments associated with the learning activity.

This is represented diagrammatically in Figure 1 and each element is briefly described andexemplified below. Each of the elements with a (+) in the diagram has an underlyingtaxonomy or set of instances.

Figure 1: Learning Activity - Top Level

The essence of a learning activity is that it must have one or more 'learning outcomes'associated with it. Learning outcomes are what the learners should know, or be able to do,after completing the LA; e.g. understand, demonstrate, design, produce, appraise. In orderto achieve the intended learning outcomes there is a 'sequence of tasks' which must becompleted. Examples of tasks are reading paper(s), discussing ideas, accessing database(s),extracting or manipulating data, answering questions, making decisions. The task 'type'taxonomy is shown in Figure 2, with one of the elements expanded to show the full tree,and other elements of 'task' are described below.


9/16



Conole, Fill (2005)

Figure 2: Task Type

Task techniques include brainstorming, exercise, field work, role play, reflection andsyndicates. We have identified almost thirty techniques to be stored in the toolkit such thatadvice can be offered to practitioners. Interactions required are likely to be individual, oneto many, student to student, student to tutor, group or class based. When undertaking tasksparticipants in the learning activity (both teachers and students) are assigned appropriate'roles', such as individual learner, group participant, or presenter. Some tasks are assessed;assessment types and techniques are shown in Figure 3.


10/16



Conole, Fill (2005)

Figure 3: Assessment

'Resources' such as web pages, databases, video streams or interactive maps, may beincluded. 'Tools', essentially facilitating applications, may also be needed; for examplesearch engines, discussion boards, spreadsheets, or media players. Within the toolkit,taxonomies for resources and tools have been based on Laurillard's five principal mediaforms (Narrative, Communicative, Adaptive, Productive, and Interactive) (Laurillard, 2002,p.90). Narrative media tell or show the learner something (e.g. text, image). Interactivemedia respond in a limited way to what the learner does (e.g. search engines, multiplechoice tests, simple models). Communicative media facilitate exchanges between people(e.g. email, discussion forum). Adaptive media are changed by what the learner does (e.g.some simulations, virtual worlds). Productive media allow the learner to producesomething (e.g. word processor, spreadsheet). Based on the classification of media in thefive categories, and the desired learning outcomes and strategies, the toolkit suggestsappropriate media types and combinations as a teacher designs a learning activity.

The tasks and associated roles undertaken to achieve the prescribed learning outcomesoccur within a particular context with characteristics which include a description of thesubject domain (e.g. Physical Geography), the level (e.g. introductory), the perceived skills


11/16



Conole, Fill (2005)

which will be used or acquired (e.g. numeracy, critical analysis), the time anticipated forcompletion of the activity (e.g. 2 hours), and any associated prerequisites (e.g. first yearcourse completion, database skills).

A central premise of this approach is that e-learning is ideally "centred on the set of studenttasks that constitute the learning experiences that the students will engage in, eitherindependently or collaboratively, in order for them to master the objectives" (Carr-Chellman & Duchastel, 2000), p. 234). In designing a learning activity a teacher usuallyhas a linear sequence of tasks in mind but, especially in an online learning environment,learners will not necessarily follow that sequence. Indeed an early project experienceflagged up the need to enable learners to move easily around the resources and tasks. Similarly, one of the drawbacks of the content manifest and organisation approach adoptedin the useful, and increasingly popular, Reload tool (Reload, 2004) is that it presupposesand enforces a linear approach.

In addition to context and tasks, the toolkit includes taxonomies and models for learningand teaching approaches based on a review by Mayes et al. (2004) which groups learningtheories according to whether they are associative (learning as activity), cognitive (learningthrough understanding) or situative (learning as social practice) (Figure 4). We have startedto populate the toolkit with theorists and models, and anticipate two main benefits. Thefirst is to offer guidance to practitioners, as they create or modify learning activities, bysuggesting possible approaches and offering them links to further information and examplesof how these can be used. The second is to store and subsequently investigate theapproaches actually selected.

Figure 4: Learning and teaching Approaches


12/16



Conole, Fill (2005)

In the course of deriving and refining the definitions and typologies, life examples weremodelled as learning activities and discussed with teaching colleagues. The representationproved both robust and informative. One activity was for individual learners and entailed

reading two online documents, answering questions in a multiple choice quiz and receivingautomatic feedback. The other involved learners viewing a wide range of online resources,data, text and images, accessing a public database, manipulating extracted data using aspreadsheet, deriving and submitting numeric answers, selecting and ranking choices fromtutor supplied drop-down lists, composing and submitting written critiques. Tutors wereinvolved in responding to learner comments and questions via an asynchronous messageboard and in marking written submissions. Numeric answers and some multiple choiceselections were automatically marked.

Once these learning activities had been modelled, it was clear that the resulting informationwould enable other teachers to review them quite swiftly and decide whether to adopt oradapt them. Furthermore, the modelling of resources and tools facilitates re-purposing. Forexample, the first activity was based on two documents internal to one of the US partners.

It would be easy for the other partners to substitute their own documents. In the secondactivity, all the resources pertained to river habitats in the UK. US colleagues couldsubstitute indigenous resources without changing the sequence of tasks and outcomes thelearners are required to undertake and produce. It would be possible to replace some of theindividual analytical tasks with group work, and so on.

These modifications are conceptually possible but remain complex in terms of technicalinfrastructure. A challenge for the toolkit developers is to resolve interoperability issues.They are aware of, and involved with, research and development in this field. The currentproject offers an excellent proving ground for potential solutions, as all four partners havedifferent virtual leaning environments. Copyright and permissions processes may alsoprove testing. From a pedagogic point of view, there are also limitations and issues yet to beresolved. These include measuring tacit knowledge, abstracting out models, capturing thedynamics and evaluating the quality of a learning activity.

An online version of the toolkit is available athttp://www.nettle.soton.ac.uk/toolkit/Default.aspx . Finally, for the toolkit to be useful, to awider community than the DialogPlus project, as a searchable database of learningactivities/resource, it needs a certain critical mass. The developers are aware of currentefforts in the fields of interoperability, metadata, digital libraries and permissions and areresolved to design and test potential solutions within the context of their current project.

7 ConclusionsAn online version of the toolkit is now available which is populated with a range of learning activities across different theoretical perspectives. A detailed comparison of theDialogPlus taxonomy with IMS Learning Design and other pedagogical taxonomies (such


13/16



Conole, Fill (2005)

as the LTSN's vocabulary http://www.ltsn.ac.uk/genericcentre/index.asp?id=19232; theSource and SESDL project taxonomies http://www.source.ac.uk andhttp://www.source.ac.uk - see Beetham, 2004 for more details on pedagogical reviews) has

also been carried out.We have defined the concept of a learning activity as the underpinning for the developmentof a learning activity design toolkit which aims to provide easy to use guidelines forpractitioners to make pedagogically informed decisions on designing learning activities andmaking choices about the use of appropriate tools and resources to support this. A learningactivity occurs within a context with a set of associated attributes and addresses a set of learning outcomes. Learning outcomes are achieved through a sequence of tasks andassociated roles adopted by the participants which might call upon a set of tools andresources. Some of the tasks are assessed.

Higher Education in the 21 st century can involve teachers and learners in a collaborativeexploration of global resources. Learning activities that effectively utilise these resourcesare being created and can be shared, adopted or adapted. Teachers need support andguidance with respect to quality of resources and e-learning design, as well as methods forunderstanding, unpacking and repurposing existing offerings. The learning activity toolkitdescribed in this paper has been specified, and is being developed, to meet these needs.

Acknowledgements: JISC/NSF funding of the Digital Libraries in Support of InnovativeApproaches to Teaching and Learning in Geography involving the universities of PennState, Leeds, UCSB and Southampton (DialogPLUS) project. Dr Christopher Bailey,Learning Technologies Research Group, University of Southampton, for his thoughtfulcontributions to the design and excellent, ongoing work on the development of the toolkit.

8 ReferencesBeetham, H. (2004), 'Review: developing e-learning models for the JISC pracititionercommunities', e-pedagogy programme report, available online athttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/epedagogy .Britain, S. and Liber. O. (2004). 'A Framework for the Pedagogical Evaluation of eLearningEnvironment', JISC-commissioned report . Available online:http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=elearning_pedagogy [accessed 01/10/04]

Carr-Chellman, A., & Duchastel, P. (2000). The ideal online course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 229-241.

Clark, M. P., & Wentworth, C. D. (1997). Constructivism and the Development of Multimedia Applications. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 30th Annual SmallCollege Computing Symposium , University of Wisconsin-Parkside.

Conole, G. (2002). 'Systematising Learning and Research Information', Journal of Interactive Media in Education , 7. Available online: http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2002/7/


14/16



Conole, Fill (2005)

[accessed 01/10/04]

Conole, G. (2004). 'Report on the effectiveness of tools for e-learning', report for the JISCcommissioned Research Study on the Effectiveness of Resources, Tools and Support Services used by Practitioners in Designing and Delivering E-Learning Activities .

Conole, G. and Dyke, M. (2004). 'What are the affordances of Information andCommunication Technologies', ALT-J , 12.2,113-124.

Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M. and Seale, J. (2004). 'Mapping pedagogy and tools foreffective learning design', Computers and Education , 43 (1-2 ), 17-33

Conole, G. and Oliver, M. (2002). 'Embedding Theory into Learning Technology Practicewith Toolkits, Journal of Interactive Media in Education , Special issue on learningtechnology theory', Open University, 2002(8), http://jime.open.ac.uk/ .

Dalziel, J. (2003). 'Implementing learning design: the Learning Activity ManagementSystem (LAMS)'. Proceedings of the ASCILITE 2003 conference, Adelaide.

Doolittle, P. (1999). Constructivism and Online Education. Available online:http://edpsychserver.ed.vt.edu/workshops/tohe1999/text/doo2s.doc [accessed 01/10/04].

Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L., & Wager, W. W. (1974). Principles of Instructional Design . FortWorth. Texas: Harcourt, BraceJovanovich.

Hedberg, J. G. (2003). Ensuring quality e-learning: Creating Engaging Tasks. Educational Media International , 40(3&4), 175-186.

Hicks, M., Reid, I., & Rigmor, G. (2001). Enhancing online teaching: designing responsivelearning environments. The International Journal for Academic Development , 6(2), 143-151.

Honebein, P. C. (1996). Seven Goals for the Design of Constructivist LearningEnvironments. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist Learning Environments, Case Studiesin Instructional Design . (pp. 11-24). Englewood cliffs, New Jersey.: EducationalTechnology Publications, Inc.

IMSLD. (2003). IMS Learning Design. Information Model, Best Practice andImplementation Guide, XML Binding, Schemas. Version 1.0 Final Specification IMSGlobal learning Consortium, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/ May 27th 2005

Jones, C. (1999). 'From the sage on the stage to what exactly? Description and the place of the moderator in co-operative and collaborative learning', ALT-J , 7(2), 27-36.

Koper, R. and Tattersall, C. (2005). (Eds) Learning Design: A Handbook on Modelling and Delivering Networked Education and Training, Springer Verlag


15/16



Conole, Fill (2005)

Koper, R. and Olivier, B. (2004), Representing the learning design of units of learning',Education, technology and society, 7(3), 97-111.

Kraan, W. (2003). Learning Design and reuseability, [Web page]. CETIS. Available online:http://www.cetis.ac.uk/content/20030902133812 [accessed 01/10/04].

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Lawrence, S. and Lee Giles, C. (1999). 'Accessibility of information on the web', Nature ,400, 107-109.

Littlejohn, A. (2003). (ed) Reuse of Educational Resources for Networked Learning .London: Routledge

Littlejohn, A. and McGill, L. (2004). 'Report on the effectiveness of resources for e-learning', report for the JISC commissioned Research Study on the Effectiveness of

Resources, Tools and Support Services used by Practitioners in Designing and Delivering E-Learning Activities

LTSN (2002). The Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) Generic Centre e-learning and assessment guides, http://www.ltsn.ac.uk/genericcentre/index.asp?id=17104

Mayes, T. and De Freitas, S. (2004). 'Review of e-learning theories, frameworks andmodels', commissioned review report as part of the JISC-funded e-pedagogy desk study one-learning models. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Stage 2 Learning Models(Version 1).pdf [accessed 24/08/05]

Meyer, A. (1998). Synthesis of learning theories and concepts. Available online:http://hagar.up.ac.za/catts/learner/ameyer/synthesisoftheories.htm [accessed 01/10/04].

Oliver, M. (2004). Understanding the Development of Teaching and Learning ResourcesProject: Phase II. Unpublished project report. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/epd/tqef

Oliver, M., McBean, J., Conole, G., and Harvey, J. (2002). 'Using a Toolkit to Support theEvaluation of Learning', Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 199-208.

Paquette, G., De la Teja, I., Lonard, M., Lundgren Cayrol, K., & Marino, O. (2005). AnInstructional Engineering Method and Tool for the Design of Units of Learning. In Koper& Tattersall (Eds.) Learning Design. Pp. 161-183. Springer-Verlag.

Reload (2004). Website, http://www.reload.ac.uk/ [accessed 29/09/04]

Salmon, G. (2000). E-Moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London:Kogan Press

Seale, J. and Ruis Rui, M. (2002). 'An introduction to learning technology within tertiaryeducation in the UK', Association of Learning Technology . Available online:http://www.alt.ac.uk/publications/ALT_Introductory_Pack.pdf


16/16



Conole, Fill (2005)

Sutherland, R., Keri, F., Furlong, R. and Furlong, J. (1999). 'A new environment foreducation? The computer in the home', CAL99, Special Issue of Computers in Education .

Thomas, G. and Wyatt, S. (1999). 'Shaping cyberspace - interpreting and transforming theInternet', Research Policy , 28 (6).

Wilson, B. G. (1996). (Ed.) Constructivist Learning Environments, Case Studies in Instructional Design . Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications,Inc.

a learning design toolkit to create pedagogically effective learning activities (conole fill 2005)

Documents